~ One format is a continuous table on the post — and that one, near bottom of the 2017 post above, is now current through June, 2017 and will be through Sept. 2017 shortly. ~ Another is in the 8×11″ paginated format, composed in a word processing software and printed to pdf (so as to keep the active links and freezing the table format which otherwise is “quirky” if messed with). The posts also contain images (previews of the pdfs) but those do not have active links.

It also links to this 2016 post, which is not “sticky” (stuck to the top position on the blog, above current posts as they appear).

“First 5”** Points Navigation/

Content of Table & Navigation of the Blog

and federal tobacco lawsuits as a factor in early childhood programming)

There are 52 postsso farin for Year 2016

** About “First 5”

I wanted to make 5 points about navigating this blog, which brought to mind again the phrase. See that section below, labeled in the same big, red, font (**in post #52, below) for more fascinating and relevant information about a project springing up almost full-fledged before the public is informed, and involving more expansive uses of public funds on young children in the cradle-to-career (“womb to tomb”) planned economy, and planned-for-them lives. In intent to make a light joke (but also point out the situation), I searched the above phrase, already knowing what this referred to in California, where I live.

Basically, money from federal tobacco lawsuit settlement/s were distributed to the states … the question is where it went and how it’s been (is being) spent, and what public institutions that also has been influence, particularly when it comes to programs targeting kids.

In such matters, always pay attention to cash flow (Front Point A to Point B, or is it points B …. Z? How exactly was this set up?) and the infrastructures sustained by the influx of billions of dollars.

<==Source of information on the United States v. Philip Morris (D.O.J. Lawsuit)

As the first bullet above (BMJ reference) says in its summary, before the USDOJ lawsuit, there were also multiple state lawsuits against some of the larger tobacco companies and (it looks like) two nonprofit research institutes and a third corporation (whether or not it was nonprofit and where it was located is unclear to me presently) named as Defendants. Those resulted, for 46? states in a Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), which my page references, and was summarized by Georgia Policy Institute, as “the largest civil settlement in U.S. history” and “negotiated and signed in November 1998 by 46 U.S. States, several territories and the four largest tobacco companies.”

The MSA (46 states and territories settlement of 1998) was around $246 billion and of course specified how and to whom payments were to be made. Central to this was setting up a national public education foundation on smoking prevention.

The reference is dated 2008. (next image and its caption holds the link). We are talking, billions of dollars, AFTER which the USDOJ filed its lawsuit against more Defendants, and for RICO, which was appealed, and basically (not completely) upheld, resulting I am sure in yet more payments. BUT how this worked out, should be seen in more detail; and know that under RICO, it is to be forward-looking deterrents, not, apparently, retroactive compensation for damages.

Important concept to the proliferation of cash flow, and political/government entities to handle and distribute it within the states, again, starting about this time and affecting the 21st century social service operations — in part because of the focus on children, but also because of the cash-flow and creations of new channels through which it might flow — inspiring (sic) the formation of multiple nonprofits to catch these rivers and rivulets of funds. Click on USDOJ Tobacco Lawsuits and Settlements (Just a~First 5~Footnote to the 2016 TOC Intro.) to read my page with summary details from government and lawsuit sites. It’s not that long, but too long for this post! That FamilyCourtMatters page is published, but will not necessarily be shown my blog sidebar. Presently that’s the only link to it I’ve posted.

I found a thousand-plus-page document (at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law site, above) representing a 2016 Amended Opinion on the USDOJ lawsuit against not four, but considerably more Defendants, and showing certain “Intervenors” with it in the lawsuit. My page looks at one of those Intervenors and its related organization also — they are indeed odd, and they are in fact funnelling activities and grants mostly overseas, with help from a foundation, mailing address Moscow. Interesting indeed, but here’s the face page showing ONE plaintiff, “the USA”, several “Intervenors” the lead Defendant (with complete list inside obviously), and the case #:

So these funds ARE being distributed to the states, held and handled under names obviously labeled for use in early childhood and disease prevention purposes, resulting in California at least, of a series of “First 5” entities and of course, a commission.

In other states, the names may have changed, but the usages were probably similar, including some on the Southeast (Georgia, Alabama come to mind), where Children’s Policy Councils (“CPCs”) were formed and administered also at the county level — as I recall from posting on it this year.

For more info., see these three posts below (the third contains the moved “First 5” material referenced at the very top of this TOC post).

“First 5” in many contexts refers to the First Five Years of Life, kids aged 0 to 5. In December 2015, the White House held a Summit on Early Childhood Education involving of course key personnel, a campaign labeled “INVEST IN US.” An organization “First Five Years Fund” speaks of this, but tactically avoids revealing who, what, or where it is. I eventually discover (Pt. 2) that it is NOT a nonprofit, but an LLC controlled by a nonprofit called “Ounce of Prevention Fund” in Illinois, as follows (click the three links to see images belowthe links from Illinois “Cyberdrive.com” (Corp/LLC search on-line) in better focus and full-sized):

The current push for accelerating all school transformation and “early childhood education” (ECE) as part of international development (judging by who’s involved) is part of global planning for population control, for the purposes of those involved in pushing for this accelerating; generally speaking, maintaining AND expanding personal and corporate profits.

The involvement of early childhood development specialists in certain fields, at certain universities’ departments, and as public/private partnerships (of course) makes this historically relevant NOW, and to the family court system. There is personnel and practice overlap, including some practices in handling of the nonprofit sector which I continue to expose. The business paradigms and practices here are politically relevant on both sides of the aisle, not what they may appear to be as advertised on the respective websites, and of major, current, public interest.

At the end of the day, after looking at material of this and similar type — and there are mother-lodes of it throughout the nonprofit (private) sector, mostly aimed at the government (public) sector — the question is: “So, you thought you understood your own government?” and “Where are others willing to use an appropriate, functional vocabulary to describe its operations?”

This post, begun Sept. 2016 and posted Oct. 4, 2016, represents a separation of the 2016 posts from that earlier, larger tablewith this obnoxious, and over time, less than honest title — in that it’s labeled “JUST the List” and in that I have a tendency to JUST keep writing and teaching these points, regardless of where my cursor is at the time — My Posts, Just the List (June 29, 2014..back to Sept. 24, 2012, and from Jan. 23, 2016 forward). That one is still only complete backwards to September, 2012. The earlier compilation doesn’t go all the way back yet (March 2009 – August 2012 only accessible through “Archives” or direct search if you know the title).

That post, which should display right underneath this one, is still a very good place to read, including its long introduction, and longer table of contents. It is one place from which to browse this blog, and it will continue to remain a top-of-the-blog post, just not the VERY, very top.

Note: The preliminary paragraphs here may eventually move or be removed. My purpose was to display the entire TOC for 2016 at the very top of the blog, and the second table (2014 retro table of contents) right underneath it, and other important posts “stuck” with their intros underneath. What will be different this time is that the “read more” tag will be after the entire 2016 Table, so those post titles are what is featured. INTRO MATERIAL ABOUT RECENT EVENTS IN MINNESOTA AFFECTING ME PERSONALLY (SOCIALLY, AND AS TO PUBLICIZING FamilyCourtMatters INFORMATION, THAT IS) MOVED TO THIS POST (<==Title tba, link will become active when it’s published)

FamilyCourtMatters is still a volunteer blog with only one writer, and as a blog is less formal than a commercial website with assistants or its own “webmaster.” It doesn’t pretend to be thoroughly copyedited or even proofread. It is a public-interest blog and resource and my major focus is look-up and write-up, with formatting “at-will and as I can.”

Commentary: I have NEVER stopped looking at this material and the foundation, corporation, court-connected professional associations since it invaded my life in the form of warfare known as the family courts and my awareness that the playing field was rigged by gender with help from the federal government (one side weighted heavier than the other) and the public carrying the debt burden for the whole mess. It has been a good history lesson also (“self-inflicted”), and I am frequently finding foundations I have already researched, or nonprofits simply following up on this material, on the front of print or other mainstream media (WSJ, NYT) — but in other contexts.

In other words, it has helped me better understand the times, and the world I already live in and make better sense of it. Clinging on to the presumption of rights when they aren’t enforceable, and one doesn’t have solid evidence why not — in my experience (including those have networked with over the years) will drive a person mad; either the presumptions/assumptions will become an imagined lifeboat, and reality will be closed off (“the Land of Dissociation/Denial”), and this has spillover consequences, or, accept the evidence — and I’m talking “Operations, Practices and History” not rhetoric expressed in hand-fed language in use by those controlling the: operations, practices, and over time, history.

FamilyCourtMatters.WordPress.com, this blog, is also being watched over the years by many levels of state, and some federal agencies, law firms, universities and other interested parties — some of them those I am covering in the blog. Sample provided in this July 17, 2016 post, “Look at Who’s Been Looking at This Blog Recently. [+ Update re: the Trust/Probate Factor].” (Certain embedded html and an outside service shows me as blog administrator. Reporting this information is still rare, but this has been true from near the start of the blog in 2009).

How and Why I Started Investing So Much Time in the TOC:

WordPress blogs do list their recent posts, but don’t generate a table of contents automatically, much less one with links to each post, as might a word processing document. Yet I have been writing and researching on its topic over a seven-year period, since March, 2009, as well as staying active commenting on public sites, whether blog, on-lines, or sometimes major media outlets (on-line), with a select group of individuals (which changes over time), by telephone and/or email.

So, in April, 2014, realizing this blog wasn’t going away any time soon, despite evolving series of tough times personally related to the reasons why I felt it necessary to start the blog in the first place, I started compiling a table of contents, reverse chronological order. I had already begun compiling posts that I felt expressed key concepts and “Sticking” them to the top of the blog, permanently, resulting in 10 of sticky posts and the possible appearance that I wasn’t writing at all.

A look at the sidebar (Most Recent Posts) does show otherwise, however.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, my own (separate) First Five points about this Table of Contents and Circumnavigating this Blog.

(1) It extends from January 23 (first post of the year), 2016, so far, through October 3, 2016. (Only one Sept. post was published; Oct. 3 includes this one, which will remain at top of the blog with its companion introduction & updates post, activated Oct. 3).

(2) For an alternate, more extensive, but click-intensive source of the same information (dates only, no titles) and more (for all 650+ posts since 2009) — see “Archives” by month. Last several posts are always displayed also on the sidebar under that title.

(3) Tags, for those posts that have them, are below the table.*

I began tagging extensively and more thoroughly in 2016 as the subject matter became more complex historically and internationally (There is an intent to internationally align our family court practices, procedures, and policies with other countries’ internationally — you are aware of this by now right? This pressure to compromise rights under state or USA federal laws for the international scenario is also coming from court-reform and protective parents groups. I do not believe it’s in individuals’ best interests in any country.).

Why: for the significance, more of the behavior of the group’s backers (including the Ford Foundation, but in this example, primarily the SF-based — until it merged with a London-based group of similar name — “JustGive.org”) than of CFFPP itself. I could have, and have at other times, done a similar expose on domestic violence organization backers (particularly where they come from mega-health-insurance field) and have done, at least in substantial part so far, another one on the associations of the protective mothers’ (so-called) organizations. This one happens to be a group I was aware of early on, and again, recently.

(5) Below this table, I have a section of “tags” for 2016 posts. For writing before 2016: About one-and-a-half years of pre-2016 lists of posts (not “pages,” most of which are on the sidebar links) are available, with titles, in my other, verbose “Table of Contents” page which has been the top page of this blog for a very long time.

Thank you for patience reading. I promise it will be rewarded with increased understanding IF you put your eyes and attention on the evidence referenced in these posts.

Some common themes may appear in a different light, which may be personally disturbing for people working in the some of these nonprofits, or for parents who have cast their lot in with the smaller advocacy groups backed by the bigger, but less than forthright about their overall purposes, tax-exempt foundations.

If you are among those feeling personally uncomfortable or disturbed after seeing this information, consider the choices you now have — deny, dismiss, disprove my deductions from the evidence or find better ones (but — incorporating the evidence) (good luck with that…), or do something constructive about the situation.

“APPENDIX – Tags for Some Posts”

” Tags” for (several of) the 2016 posts above, by date.

Posts, and relevance of tags, are subject to revision (parts may move to other posts after publication), but I hope this may help people curious about specific topics where not all subjects covered in the post may show up in the titles. I don’t always tag before publishing, but here are some times that I did this year:

It’s a little suspect how very many BIG organizations were funding such as SMALL nonprofit first started in Chicago, Illinois (then was involuntarily dissolved) then, re-instating itself with a name-change, decided to go to Wisconsin. One or two of its key personnel (at least) was associated with the IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty) up at UWisconsin, which has considerable public funding.

I have not looked at EVERY funder listed here, but since this post, more recently, I was looking another one of those listed and found it to be tied to a for-profit consulting organization in Boston.

THIS IS BRIEF Sept. 2017 UPDATE on CFFPP after I noticed an image with broken link, probably an image showing the logo full-sized (light-yellow background inside navy borders with a quote and comments on the quote, and font-change):

NOTE: After posting on this organization (“it happens”), this post having been published only Feb. 10, 2017, I noticed the website has had a major facelift, is simplified and (probably) has less info on it. However, rather than with clear black letters on white background, and occasional brown print (shown in a section I posted earlier), it now is white letters on navy (Banner with logo) and underneath that, some VERY large lettering with an introductory paragraph. I’m reproducing the new (I first noticed it Fall, 2017 — Internet Archive/Wayback Machine may have a more precise date of website facelift) home page and intro paragraph right here below. After that, the text goes back to earlier post narrative…. //LGH 9/25/2017

CFFPP updated (since Feb. 2017 at least) website home page

The Center for Family Policy and Practice (CFFPP) was founded in 1995 with a focus on family and fatherhood policy. We consider the impact of national and state social welfare and child support policy on low-income parents and their children. After more than 20 years, our work has evolved. Now, our primary goals are (1) to change the dialogue about family economic security to include the perspective of parents who may not live with their children, (2) to attach children’s wellbeing to both their parents’ security and success, and (3) to articulate the need for a family policy that supports racial equity and safety from violence and abuse.

[emphases mine. Briefly, the statement that there is a “then” and “now” actually less father-centric and less about racial equity, with safety from violence and abuse as anything less than an afterthought to the main themes — seems language only. “family economic security” incorporates welfare and child support issues, “the perspective of parents who may not live with their children” specifically, typically, has been code for “noncustodial fathers” and may or may not still be, although increasingly or at least still over time, children are still being removed from the homes of nonabusive mothers into formerly noncustodial (in part because of the abuse) fathers — does that make the organization more sensitive to women’s needs? And, did you know that Esta Soler (of Futures without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund) was at one time board of directors of this SMALL organization which (as I recall) also failed to stay incorporated properly in IL, and on having been revoked there, moved instead to Wisconsin?

See Table of Contents, I believe there are 2016 or 2017 posts with “CFFPP” in the title; it’s an organization that came to my attention (as a father-focused, based in part to counter racism, organization) periodically over the years of blogging.

Written in Feb. 2017: I’d have to review the post in more detail to remember how it is that ‘Iron Planet” relates to “JustGive” as well as to an international (with ties to Brazil) venture involving a major Texas infrastructure (highway) project. See yellow-background section.

(CFFPP.org. See also very bottom of this post for more info, and related posts in this sequence).

See “https://www.justgive.org/about-us/index.jsp” and that in “…On July 18, 2016 JustGive joined with JustGiving, the world’s largest social giving platform. Headquartered in London, UK, JustGiving has helped 27m people in 165 countries raise $4bn for NPOs and grassroots projects since its launch in 2001. Both JustGive and JustGiving share an identical goal: to grow charitable giving by connecting people with the charities and causes they care most about. Kendall Webb conceived the idea for JustGive in 2000. She had worked in the Internet world for many years, and was a founding member of the successful start-up more.com, but became disillusioned by the focus on profits.”

From this same post, what’s happening — fast, and this is JUST ONE organization engaged in some of this type of activity — speed-processing of donations (internet-enabled, it looks like) disclaiming responsibility for monitoring, because they are “Donor-Advised” — but by virtue of controlling the same Donor Advised Funds, the organization actually is responsible; such funds come usually with a disclaimer that the organization hears the donor’s requests, but will make its own decisions. (JustGive disclaimer on one of the Schedules attached to an IRS form as to what grantees do after it processes the donations):

Supplemental Information. Provide the information required in Part I, line 2, Part III, column (b), and any other additional information. LINE 2:

THE DONOR ADVISED FUND MAKES GRANTS TO CHARITIES BASED ON DESIGNATIONS OF THE DONOR. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SUBSEQUENT MONITORING OF THE USE OF THE FUNDS BY THE ORGANIZATION.

However, on another (related) website (“I Do Foundation”) the Terms of Service (as I recall) held this disclaimer about the DAF. The “I Do Foundation” was incorporated in 2002, it said:

Your donation. Your donation is being made to JustGive. JustGive is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization that operates a Donor Advised Fund (“DAF“), and as such, processes donations and disburses funds as grants to charities based on donor recommendations. Your credit card statement will read “JG US” or “JustGive” and not the recommended charity since your donation is to JustGive’s DAF through the JG US Website.

And this also shows who has real control of those funds, once they are processed:

You cannot donate to other DAFs, individuals, or private foundations through the Website. You cannot donate through this site if you are a DAF, private foundation, or a member of the Board of Directors of JG US or JustGive.

The assets held in JustGive’s DAF are that organization’s property, and subject to its exclusive legal control. Grant funds may be used only for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the donor or donor advisor or other impermissible private benefit.

That’ JG US Website” consists of the off-shoring. One thing at at time — I looked that organization (JG US) up in California, and found this:

This from Kepler.sos.ca.gov (California Business Entity Search) –details obtained by clicking on Org. name after first search result). “JustGIVING CA, Inc.” as opposed to “JUSTGIVE.”

[2017 update: Kepler.sos.ca.gov has become “businesssearch.sos.ca.gov” Currently the old address still redirects to the new one. What’s shown after basic searches has changed some; it now adds some images (pdf uploadable) from an entity’s background, but mostly electronic filed, it seems; and I’m not sure they are shown every year or even required to be filed every year, but every other year. (see website for more details.. //LGH 9/25/2017]

Entity Name:

JG US, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS JUSTGIVING CA, INC.

Entity Number:

C3911707

Date Filed:

05/31/2016

Status:

ACTIVE

Jurisdiction:

DELAWARE

Entity Address:

2ND FL BLUEFIN BLDG 110 SOUTHWARK ST

Entity City, State, Zip:

LONDON ENGLAND SELOTA

Agent for Service of Process:

CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

Agent Address:

2710 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 150N

Agent City, State, Zip:

SACRAMENTO CA 95833

…”London England Selota” ??? “Selael0 Selota” is a SouthAfrican gold miner turned famous jazz musician. From “MusicInAfrica.net” Photo won’t show from url or I’d include it.

Maybe a data entry person at California Secretary of State (or other outsourced contractor…) was listening to his music while inputting the business entity address?

For that many grants??!!## — what about prevention of fraud, in donations to non-entities? This link (a printout, about 3pp max — as pdf — of “Charitable Details” Schedule for JustGive as a California charity — from the Office of Attorney General (OAG), not the Secretary of State (SOS) website, shows, among many other things that their REVENUES Fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013 were over $40M — that’s a lot of donations being processed!)

So there’s the speed and volume, then the Donor-Advised Fund factor, then there’s the “impossible to follow the money because the tax return reporting where the grants went is ILLEGIBLE (as opposed to — found in another large community foundation in Greater New Haven, Connecticut (i.e., where Yale University is!) — which simply for 2015 didn’t submit the schedule of grantees (by recall, I think that amount was around $29M). Here, for JustGive, we had “$38M Illegible”

Then there’s the “after all that, we’re merging with a London-based charity, to continue the same business in California)…. Talk about “off-shoring” — anyone during this Presidential Election year (USA) mentioning the off-shoring of the nonprofit organizations as well?

One way, apparently, is to keep the organization domiciled legally in the US — just move the investments overseas — like to Central America and the Caribbean (as in “Cayman Islands”) or elsewhere. Another way is to simply merge into another organization based overseas….

JUSTGIVE.ORG was formed as an accelerated fund-raiser only in Year 2000. In a given year, it was (reportedly) processing $38 MILLION of grants through DAF — Donor-Advised-Funds. The public was treated to THIS legibility towards the recipients (from its tax returns) — i.e., illegible, while the organization itself maintained a low fiscal profile on its tax returns as far as “Total Assets” are showing. More excerpts from that same post (marked by light-blue background inside black borders, plus the image right below that indented quote):

[[Obviously tags of complete sentences (like the first one) are a bit “over the top.” I used the tags section this time to summarize a few conclusions and remind myself of the contents.

The commas (“,”) separate individual tags in the list below. Wordpress doesn’t allow internal commas in tags, so every one you see in the paragraph below marks a new tag starting and the previous one ending. I marked the first comma in red and a large font.]]

8/9/2016 post,If You Won’t Responsibly Notice, Detail and Come to any Conclusion on DOMESTIC Govt-Funded NGOs (Here, DAIP, BWJP in MN) and Databases (here, TAGGS.HHS.GOV, a 990-finder, and IRS Pub. 78 EOS Search), How Will You Stand Up for ANYONE’s Rights (incl. yours) under GLOBAL Govt-funded NGO Control?

[I wrote:] f or whenmost people cannot or will not look at the local nonprofit organizations and connect the financial dots between federal/state relationships well enough to make sound judgments about the same (about key organizations being funded, and from there, about key social policies being enacted),what about when the NGOs: <> span different continents; <> are not even run from the USA; and (but still) <> involve the US Department of Justice – – – THEN what?

“CONNECTIVE TISSUE:” I published this post 8/22/2016, cleaned it up some over the next two days, adding two images (at the bottom) and am adding these ShortLinks to Supporting and Related Posts published 8/23 and (within the hour) 8/24). The titles are long, but the links (“urls”) are short and can be easily copied for tweeting or other messaging. Same idea as “tinyurl.com”

Being published 8/24/2016: “Case in Point, NEVER skip the Business 501(c)3 Entity Lookups, and Watch the “Fiscal Agent” organizations! (Edward Charles Foundation, Fiscal Agent to “FreedomAdvocates” and, apparently, the Stars (post begun 7/3/2016)” <==<== This post looks more at Edward Charles Foundation and at Freedom Advocates tax returns, and shows a different name used by the latter for the IRS filing than at the State level, as well as that Freedom Advocates only filed in 2006 and 2008, that I can see. ECF is how I found out about the Whitaker Initiative for short, in part looking for its contributions to “Peace Foundation” business entity, not found). Meanwhile, the original incarnation (name) for the Whitaker Institute showed a website “peacearth.org” (no longer valid), while a Form 990-N, which has a blank for “website” in 2012 showed “none.” Odd, for an organization talking about the media campaigns it is running overseas and as part of original articles of incorporation statement of intended activities.

Although any of these posts should stand alone if a reader follows up on the links, or understands “looking it up,” they are strengthened in association with each other.

So I have had a little trouble coming out with the information on these posts, but — to be honest — the information is relevant. Promoting world peace and engaging in convoluted financial arrangements between multiple name- AND address-changing nonprofits and for-profits just does not add up. What’s peaceful or sustainable about engaging in inappropriate fiscal behavior at home, that is in these US-registered entities? The backlighting on this one casts some shadows, in my opinion, on the credibility of the up-front declarations of what is really intended here. Also, as pointed out, what is the point of raising money in So Cal under these conditions and sending it to a New Jersey State University (Rutgers) and for an “Institute” which doesn’t seem to have its own fiscal identity, and where the cash flow accountability would, most likely, get lost in transit.

CONNECTIONS to UNESCO and 17 World-Transforming “SDGs”

(And short side-trips to The Port Authority of NY/NJ, and an award to a Duluth, MN organization from the “World Future Council” — based in London, Geneva, Hamburg,(Germany) and Beijing …. (etc.))

doubling the size of this post, belongs here because without it, I doubt readers would understand why I seem so intent on the situation represented by ECF and Freedom Advocates, which by comparison aren’t that large, and are in fact very recent in origin.

NOTE: There is a section on “World Future Council” and under it, “Nuclear Peace Age Foundation.” As informative and/or entertaining as that segment is, I may move it to a separate place post-publication. Before such removal, we are looking here at 18,282 words..

This post, bottom half, labeled:

WRITTEN EARLY JULY, 2016:

reviews the “Agenda 21” and that lawsuit against its application to the San Francisco nine-county Bay Area (Northern California), and gets into the actual Edward Charles Foundation (“ECF”) and at Freedom Advocates tax returns, and uncovers a different name used by the latter for the IRS filing than at the State level, as well as that Freedom Advocates only filed in 2006 and 2008, that I can see. ECF is how I found out about the Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative, Inc. (“WPDI”) in part looking for ECJ’s contributions to “Peace Foundation” business entity, not found; meanwhile, the original incarnation (name) for the Whitaker Institute showed a website “peacearth.org” (no longer valid), while a Form 990-N, which has a blank for “website” in 2012 showed “none.”

Odd, for an organization talking about the media campaigns it is running overseas and as part of original articles of incorporation statement of intended activities, to not have a website up and running.

09/05/2016 post, Politics, Governors, Attorney-Generals and The Port Authority of NY/NJ (The Downside of Public/Private Partnerships) – SeeAlso “NextCity,” and another UNESCO “Name It and Claim it” Project in Detroit

I learned a lot writing this post, and am sure anyone would, reading it. The relevance of what is happening now to Detroit (and the identifiable history of HOW it happened) applies to other cities.

11/08/2016 post, Who Produced The Greenbook Initiative? And, About NGA, NCJFCJ, AFCC, Council on State Govts (Trade Associations You Should Know). (Moved from “My Posts-Just the List” on 10-5-2016, Expanded by 2/3rds and Posted 11/8/2016)

############

WordPress (blog) Tags:(the “x” here is the separator; these links obviously not active):

“GO TO” Widget for: Current Posts (12 Sticky on top:–>incl. Tables Of Contents and Other Featured Posts marked ‘Sticky’) (This one “Widget” holds Ten Boxes=Doorways to other posts or pages). Last Updated 21 Dec. 2019.

**Below Twelve (12) "Sticky" (pinned) posts, several of which are Tables of Contents. {{TOCs 2019 So Far, 2018 and 2017 (wh/contains earlier ones) also listed separately, below on this Widget}}. Generally, for the most recent posts (access individually) scroll down on this sidebar to 'The Ten Most Recent 'Let's Get Honest' Posts' widget, which updates automatically, further below on this sidebar.

(This is the blog's standing, Static 'Current Posts' Page where all posts are shown, so its case-sensitive short-link (being a 'Page') ends 'PsBXH-8v2')

(This post finishes off-ramping four previously-shortened-version text widgets (with some July, 2019, updates), the title names them. Former versions of them were previously saved by posting in full on one or the other of the first two links above (with the word "Sidebar" in their titles) (links to full versions also stored on this post). THIS POST ALSO holds my narrative lead-in and footnotes around 'BMTP' (Battered Mothers Testimony Project){{=pdf of its Final Rept 2002}} at Wellesley Centers For Women, leading to my strongly-worded disclaimer/commentary on how, while misogyny (overall) is real and systemic, I disagree w standard feminist (so-called) domestic violence advocacy's protocol response to handling of Violence Against Women and Child Abuse 'IN the Family Courts'). Drill-down started led to better understanding of 1985ff (now, as 2 merged centers) WC4W's historic psychoanalysis/ psychology focus and funders of this influential, well-endowed, private, Boston-area, all-woman college's influential reporting (2002, example shown), effectively driving DV and VAWA policy. Still investigating... (see also Kathleen Stone Kaufmann, Wellesley '67(?) + her parents' "Stone Endowmt Fund")

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be! **

**Summer, 2019, Update/s: This widget formerly called "Contributions Welcome & Needed/Thanks." Its full contents are now on a separate post (linked above and below) and I'm deciding how much, if any, of this one to keep in place here..//LGH.

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn't be!

What I do here: I expose the Systems Design, and the Designers, so Y.O.U. can Show Others, and to notify those playing certain games, "you've been flagged."

Heard of "disruptive technologies?" Disruptive innovations?
Well, this is a disruptive blog. I give people who've already been strung out and stripped down BY the system another place to stand and look at it, and a clear, fairly diagnostic language (vs. pretty logos and moving pictures) to describe it to others. AND, which many don't do, I tell how I found the information; links databases and all.

Despite the blog's appearance, I know what I'm doing! You're looking at long-term leverage, in the hands of the "non-experts," in the public interest, not public funded propaganda to drive business to private pockets. Hence, I'm not afraid to ask:

The formula for this public/private business model isn't really that complex, but the concept itself was just so devious, insidious, parasitic, grandiose, and by now, so baked into the economic, institutional infrastructure, people either don't notice, or, in a common, cowardly, but all too human response they see, and just start denying, or looking for nicer explanations of an ugly truth -- where it's heading. For lack of nicer, but still honest terms, it's heading towards yet more slavery (and tolerating it) and genocide (and tolerating it). [[2019 comments: and the ability to drive the U.S., in particular, into even more, bigger, and more costly/dangerous wars, discrediting us (further) internationally. But I wrote this sidebar many years ago..]]

As a woman, mother, a family court and domestic violence survivor [yes, he was a hitter, and more], who has already 'faced the music' in more ways than I can count, to the best of my ability, I do not do "denial." I also ask the public, what's left of it, to just not go down that Denial Road, and with it lose more of their innate humanity, perception, and ethics. There is another way out, one with a conscience:

Really want system change? Make up your mind to understand government financing -- change yourself first. Find and read your local "CAFR" (government's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports), a wonderful source of information, with flow chart, descriptions of component or blended government units it's reporting on, and reporting the balances in each fund -- ever heard of a "Balance Sheet"? Looking for this also reveals just how many governmental business entities ARE there? Find them. Read. Think about what you see. What does it mean?

Governments tend to pool their investments, for example, "CALPERS" (essentially created ca. 1931) is the largest "public pension" investing platform around, or at least in the country. Getting started earlier sure helped, then adding players (subscribers) over time ALSO did. In 1985, add "CII" Council on Institutional Investors (members: in 31states and D.C.) (LA Times 1985 article on Calif. Politician (state treasurer, assembly speaker) Unruh whose idea it was for the Council so institutional funds could "flex their muscle"; and push for corporate governance reform. CII members now control $3 trillion of assets)-- my point being, government holdings are invested and when pooled like this, are major clout, but the average person never reads even a single government entity's annual financial reports to take a look. (I wasn't aware of them til 2012!)

Governments not only invest their funds in business, they also by legislation, patenting, and protections, set them up to win, or lose. So, "know thy government" is a great place to start. (See blog/see links in the blog).
[This Dialogue continued below under the sidebar widget "Really Want Systems Change?".]

Copyright “fair use” doctrine cited USC Title 17 Ch 1 SEC. 107

The "fair use" doctrine allows limited reproduction of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes. The relevant portion of the copyright statue provides that the "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is not an infringement of copyright. U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107.